It’s Time to Question the Moon Landing

Post navigation

Oliver Stone helped move the Overton Window on the Kennedy assassination. His film JFK, drawing from Jim Marrs’s book, paints a picture of what could have happened that day. At first it wasn’t common to question the narrative; the official story was generally accepted. But many began to question the details surrounding the President’s death, and now it’s fairly common to say the official story doesn’t tell the whole story. According to this poll, a majority believe the government was involved.

The same needs to happen for the Moon Landing. Doubting the moon landing needs to become acceptable, common, a must for every critical thinker. My aim here is not to thoroughly examine all the evidence for the moon hoax. For a meticulous debunk go here or here. I aim to provide inspiration for further investigation, and appeal to all critical thinkers to reconsider the moon landings.

Apart from all the anomalies in evidence, the moon itself debunks the landing. With a powerful zoom lens, we see that the moon isn’t a spherical rock like we supposed. While in gibbous phase, pictures show the top edge of it has depth. It appears to change shape like a deflating bag, and behaves more like a

The moon in gibbous phase

The moon isn’t 237,000 miles away like they said, it’s much closer, as you can tell in the photo. But it isn’t a spherical rock. There’s no way anyone landed on it. For years many have documented the inconsistencies in the moon landing story, but now we have evidence from the moon itself: it’s a light, not a rock.

Here astronaut Don Pettit claims we destroyed the technology to go to the moon.

Did we really have the tech to reach the moon?

How do we shift the Overton Window on the moon hoax? How does it become commonplace to question it? We’re on twitter daily mocking the Lunar Lander. We ask people if they believe we went to the moon as a starting point, to see how much they’ve looked into things. But how do we keep pushing, til skepticism becomes the standard? Leave your answer in the comments.

Post navigation

Published by Stacey McStationary

One day, as I was scrolling Twitter, Flat Earth came across my timeline. I've never been the same! Earth is not a spinning globe. Now I challenge and encourage people on their shape-of-earth journey.
View all posts by Stacey McStationary

10 Comments

Do some real investigative reporting beyond the material NASA has released to the public. All the points listed are tired, and it’s a weak argument that the moon isn’t spherical or the distance as advertised just based on a couple pictures. If you want to be taken seriously you need real evidence, real data to back it up.
You need to get the starting point of your premise figured out first. You’re starting from a point of Flat Earth, so of course you’re going to assume the lunar landings were faked. I don’t think you’re going to get past Flat Earth that easy, so instead focus just on the Apollo missions. You’re not going to trust any of the pictures taken during the missions, that’s obvious, so start with the launch, focus on the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo missions: was it even capable of doing what is advertised? And then all of the modules: the lander, the service module, the return module, were they capable of doing what is advertised?
Those are all things that were built on Earth and have the best chance of really being investigated because of how many people had to be involved and all of the material around their development and design. If even one of those can be definitively proven to be incapable of doing what’s advertised then you’d have the beginning of a case.
I’m a glober, and I want someone with FE to actually dig into this and not make assumptions based on conjecture and weak arguments that aren’t backed up by real findings. Do some real investigations and then you’d get people like me to listen.

Hi Joe, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Again, my intention was to inspire investigation; many have devoted years to moon hoax debunk and I linked to their sites.
@TTown: “You’re starting from a point of Flat Earth” Not necessarily. The earth is flat, but even if you’re unwilling to concede that, the moon landing can’t withstand the mildest scrutiny.
@TTown: “focus on the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo missions: was it even capable of doing what is advertised?” Great question. Answer: No.
@TTown: “If even one of those can be definitively proven to be incapable of doing what’s advertised then you’d have the beginning of a case.” Awesome!
Thanks again for reading & commenting!

You see that none of what you provided is actual evidence, right? It’s hearsay at best. I commend that you are looking to inspire actual investigation, that’s what’s needed. You say it can’t stand the mildest scrutiny, then where is the actual evidence that isn’t just based on media NASA released to the public or taking an interview out of context? Drop your preconceptions and dig in to some actual meat.
What’s been done by conspiracy theorists so far is armchair-investigation at best, which is why it’s easily dismissible. If you don’t believe it can stand up to actual scrutiny, then actually scrutinize it.

Hi Joe, respectfully, everything I provided is evidence. The details are readily available to anyone with internet access. Although moon hoax debunk is not my calling, perhaps a more robust study on this site would be expedient. Thanks for your interest and challenge.

Every year since then has brought new insight into how farcical it is to think that humans were capable of performing this feat. Once I began to understand the flat earth phenomenon in 2016 — and the fact that the moon is not even an object — it made the whole moon landing phenomenon come into sharp focus as a cold war drama that controlled the minds of those who really wanted to believe. Oddly enough my alcoholic, abusive grandfather was the first one I ever heard voice disbelief in the moon landings. How strange that he was the only one in my life with a clue.

Some of the best direct evidence that I think exists of the hoax is the fact that the communications between the “astronauts” and “mission control” were supposedly happening across 238,000+ miles with little to no delay. And they were done with the smallest of transmitters. Today, to send a live signal across a city, a television reporter has much more robust equipment than the lunar lander, but there is still significant delay to transmit across distances that are a microfraction of the alleged distance between the Apollo astronauts and mission control. And when your favorite reporter is broadcasting live, the reporter and the anchor are on the same plane. Yet the Apollo astronauts were allegedly sending audio and video signal across hundreds of thousands of miles toward an object spinning at ~1,000 mph. Both the sending source (the moon) and the receiving destination (earth) would have been moving. Yet Houston and the astronauts maintained real-time conversations.

This same setup also supposedly allowed earth based controllers to manipulate a camera on the moon rover and pan around while the astronauts worked and lifted off. Remote control of micro movements of equipment that is hurtling at breakneck speeds hundreds of thousands of miles away on the first try with no testing is laughably impossible.

Also, as you indicated above, the relative size and position of the earth as viewed from the moon in the Apollo photos is impossible. Earth would always be directly overhead. And would always be many times larger in the sky than the moon is as viewed from earth.

@Bryan “Oddly enough my…grandfather was the first one I ever heard voice disbelief in the moon landings. How strange that he was the only one in my life with a clue.” Right? Wow.
@Bryan “…to transmit across distances that are a microfraction of the alleged distance between the Apollo astronauts and mission control.”
237K miles to a spinning ball ROTFLOL!
Excellent points Bryan. Maybe you would like to do a guest post on this blog? 🙂